Third Party & Independents Archives

This ruling allows big oil, big Pharma, Wall Street, to pick their friends, oppose reform and run candidates who are going to go along with their point of view. The Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington research group that tracks money in politics, has found that thus far in the 2010 election cycle, business political action committees have given a total of $115.9 million, 57 p ercent of it to Democrats. Labor PACs have given $23.9 million, 93 percent to Democrats.
From B&C “says Evan Tracey, CEO of the Campaign Media Analysis Group at TNS Media Intelligence. “It’s not like all the folks that could benefit from this ruling hadn’t already figured out the necessary workarounds to get the money into the process. It just turns a revolving door into a swinging door.”
“Tracey posited that it is Democrats who are better positioned to take advantage of the new ruling. “
“The Democrats already have this structure in place because their support groups come from places like Hollywood, the dot-com [companies], labor unions, environmental groups. They have a pretty good built-in infrastructure to take advantage of this.”
The correct position is that it has way less to do with demreps and everything to do with the Corpocracy. You could remove the demreps tomorrow and replace them with the communist and constitution parties and the Corpocracy would still hold sway, IMO.
Otherwise, and all that- - -

Unbelievable decision by the SCOTUS. As one pundit put it, Chief Justice Roberts just put gold bars in Wall Street’s boxing gloves. 5-4 decision, with the conservative justices in the majority.

I just want to take a moment to recognize all the Republicans and conservatives who made this horror possible. I’m talking about the people who voted for Bush, and supported the nominations of Roberts and Alito. Nice. Very nice. Clap, clap. The overt transformation of the United States into a Corporatist government could not have happened without you.

You blithely opposed big government, blissfully unaware that the only thing that stood between the corporations and you was precisely that government of ‘We the People.’ You squealed about liberals and socialists on cue… Now, there nothing to stop the literal and complete ownership of the people’s government by corporations.

Nice job, conservatives. Thanks bunches.

Didn’t we recently have a Rep, lesser of two evils, voted in as a Senator because the MAJORITY of voters in Mass. don’t want the budget bustin, middle class worker bashing, jobless recovery and back room shenanigins being pushed by the dems?

Roy,
That was a potential Democratic Senator in MA who would have voted for justices like Sotomayor, a justice who voted against handing over the government to corporations, to her great credit. The GOP winner in MA is a Senator who will vote for justices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, despicable corporatists who think money is a form of free speech, and that a legal fiction like a corporation has the same first amendment rights as a flesh and blood citizen.

Justice Thomas thought the decision did not go far enough in favor of corporations! Disgusting.

So let’s be clear. Let’s make sure everyone understands. This happened as a direct result of conservative, Republican actions. These Supreme Court justices are the gift from Bush that just keeps on giving, and it could not have occurred without the active complicity of conservatives and Republicans.

We are, without question, a country rotting to death from the inside. With a decision like that, is there any one of you that can honestly say there is any hope for America after this decision? At a time when people are finally realizing the depth to which corporate tentacles reach down and strangle America’s heart, corporations now, literally, and without question, rule our political system.

Mike,
The GOP was already corporatist right down the line, along with a handful of ‘centrist’ Democrats such Baucus, Lieberman, and Bayh. If anyone thought the transformation of health care reform into a corporate giveaway was ugly, just wait. With unlimited funding by corporations, the liberals will be destroyed, along with labor unions, environmentalists, and anyone else opposing the enormous financial resources of Wall Street/Big Oil/Insurance/Big Pharma/Defense. If this is allowed to stand, the middle class will be obliterated, and the movement of the US population into third world status will occur at breakneck pace.

Watch the conservatives and Republicans stand as one in silence, like so many good Germans. Limbaugh, Hannity, and others will say nothing. This ruling is quite simply catastrophic for a government that is supposed to be for the people, yet there will be no protest from the right, not even a whimper.

Roy, this ruling now permits these candidate and issue advertisers to hide their identity and motives from the public. No public transparency or accountability over the biased information dominating the media advertising and marketing outlets during an election.

And it opens the way for these wealthy corporations and non-profit organizations to directly support a candidate or malign a candidate who won’t play ball with them. This opens wide the door for legalized blackmail of our politicians at election time, and since, there are no limits, they can bombard the public with misinformation 3 months, 6 months, a year, or more before an election.

One doesn’t have to even lie to bring government to its knees through corporate control of the media. One only has to obfuscate the truth to prevent good and positive democratic government from functioning.

Plato discussed philosopher kings as the elite worthy of governance. Which gave birth to communism in modern times. What has just been unleashed is governance by the wealth kings. And they will destroy anyone in government who stands in the way of their accumulating ever more of the nation’s wealth into their all too few hands.

It is poor consolation indeed that Republicans have vindicated my writings over the years about the logical consequences of their political philosophy, and intentions during the Bush years.

I wrote here for years that they were destroying our economic future. And the economy collapsed just as they left power. I wrote that their partnership with corporate America would steal wealth from the majority of Americans, and that happened too. I wrote that they were becoming puppets of greed and elitists who would use wealth to control power, undermining our democratic republic. That too, has now come to pass.

The writing was on the wall for years. But, the spin and hype costing 100’s of millions of special interest dollars convinced the majority of Americans to not read it, and if they read it, to not believe it. Orwell and Huxley, and many a Sci-Fi and political fiction writers have warned us this could, and would, occur in a democratic society should the people fail to remain vigilant.

Barney Franks posits this evening on the Rachel Maddow show, that some of the damage of this ruling can be mitigated by Congress’ established ability to control corporate actions involving veiled bribery and blackmail and conspiracy to violate ant-trust laws. Not having the details, I don’t know if he is correct or not. However, any laws that now stand in the way of corporate will, can be changed by the corporations selection of our nation’s representatives. Even constitutional amendments will now become far more easily accomplished with corporations dictating who will sit in Congress going forward.

There literally is nothing, not even the Constitution which can now stand between corporations gaining complete control over our government. Corporations can force any legal changes they wish going forward. They only need deep pockets, which they have, and the time it takes to conduct several elections of Congress and one or two presidential elections, to put their cast of puppet characters in the majority to do their bidding.

And it happened on Jan 21, Inauguration day for our new corporate overlords.

I remember a friend telling me the world had changed on 9-11. I told him nothing had changed, I was just glad I wasn’t in N.Y.

Today, I fear the world has changed. I’m stunned.

I sincerely hope some change in corporate law is coming quickly, but I doubt it.

I was laughing at the people wanting to arm themselves, now I think I’ll visit the arms shop. Maybe it’s because I’ve been reading about Adams, but I keep wondering if Jefferson just rolled over. Jefferson is still dead!

Given the distribution of wealth in this country, this may be an overreaction on my part. I’m hoping I’ll catch my breath in the morning.

gergle, actually the path to this day began with those in the 1950’s who failed to understand or didn’t listen to Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower who warned the nation against the industrial military complex taking control of the reins and purse strings of government.

It did, under the Johnson and Nixon administrations and again under the GW Bush administration, in two wars America had no business waging. As a result of GW Bush, evolution has now occurred from the more isolated military-industrial complex to the entire corporate world taking over control, and with the blessings and machinations of Republicans, all along.

No irony here. Dwight D. Eisenhower was an exceptional Republican, the likes of which is nearly impossible to find in the Congress or Republican ranks today. A few of the old guard like John Warner have aged and left to tend the end of their days. It’s even becoming a rarity to find a Republican in government who has served in the military anymore. There is something about sound objective education and service to nation with sacrifice, that wouldn’t permit what is taking place today. But, there aren’t enough of those in government anymore, and so we are losing our democratic republic to a marriage of plutocracy and oligarchy. Anyone not on the inside, will become servants to those who are.

Adam Smith has to be turning in his grave.

Well it isn’t like we as a country don’t deserve this ridiculous ruling by the SCOTUS. We have been asking for just this for years.

BTW before President Eisenhower there were others that warned us about the corporations taking control of the government. Before President Roosevelt there were others that fought to control the corporations. Although Roosevelt did unequivocally warn us of a day such as this.

“The death knoll of the Republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for it’s interests as opposed to the interest of others.” - T. Roosevelt Labor Day 1903

But early on President and founding father Thomas Jefferson warned us of the dangers of corporations.

“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a
trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Thomas Jefferson, 1812
Source:Liberty Quotes

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks),will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
Thomas Jefferson

Of course more recently the compassionate conservative, prior to being reelected, warned us that the conservatives were serious about inflicting great harm upon this country. We just thought he misspoke but…..

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful. And so are we. They never stop thinking about ways to harm our Country and our people. And neither do we.” George W.Bush Aug 5, 2004.

BTW David, excellent article you have posted here.

j2t2, thank you very much for those quotes. Yes, the writing has been on the wall for a very long time, and Americans either failed to read the writing, or dismissed it as historical graffiti. Shame on them, and us. We were supposed to be the beacon of democracy in the world. That torch has now passed to other democracies, who shudder at the thought of giving corporations unfettered control of the election media advertising and misinformation, and time slots to control the issues the public is aware of, and to shape their opinions on those issues. But, it will be the issues they downplay or refuse to have discussed, that will pose the greatest harm to American liberty, and democracy.

Why would a corporation and its shareholders hesitate to spend 2 billion in profits on electing representatives who will be favorable to that corporation’s greed, when they will reap many times that in profits after the election is over with their stooges in office.

These 2010 elections in Nov. are going to be unlike any previous if this ruling cannot be countered by other means. One of the roles of federal government is protect the citizens from the wholesale greed of corporations, as when Ford Motor continues to produce Pintos which burn to death their owners upon rear end impact, or, when the tanning industry so pollute drinking water supplies that adults and children alike develop cancers and all manner of other horrible illnesses unbeknownst to them, all in the name of maximizing profits. Far too many corporations in America are Bernie Madoffs multiplied a 10 thousand fold in capacity to steal away the quality of life of working, consuming Americans and enslaving them to the long term corporate destructiveness of the economy which laissez faire always results in when carte blanche is granted to corporate naked greed.

Regulation of the corporations is an obligation of federal government in all democracies. In America, to end such regulation, corporations need only do away with effective democracy, which the Supreme Court granted them the means to accomplish yesterday.

A lot of caterwaling and play on ideology going on here. Let’s see, the dems’/Corpocracy might have used some of their ‘political capital’ to invoke anti-trust, put on the shelf by Regan. If the Dem’s/Corpocracy had chose to bust up the big corp’s into several smaller corp’s there would have been more jobs created and way more competition, leading to better prices and increased production. Instead, they chose to jump in bed with the insurance and med co’s and stick it to the public. Exp. Insurance co’s agreed to kick in some billions in price relief toward the house HC bill. But, long before the bill passed the House the Ins. Co’s raised the price for products beyond the billions they had promised in relief.
Deceive yourself if you like but the Dem’s/Corpocracy are licking their chops at the SCJ decision. This ruling is way tame in relation to Money Is Free Speech and the silly idea that corporations are human. Haven’t heard the Dem’s/Corpocracy beating any war drums about any of that. Let’s hear it for anti-trust!
Yes, our Founder’s would be highly displeased with our plight. Jefferson – ‘every 20 years’ and so on. Here’s hoping that this ruling helps bring people around to believing that a 3rd party, with a different political attitude, targeting reform, providing oversight and putting accountability into the political equation ain’t a bad idea.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Roy, you are quite correct to critique to the Dem’s as takers of corporate largess. Dem’s however, are ideologically opposed to delivering to wealthy special interests if those interests would compromise their historical broad base of support amongst the working middle class and minority groups. Not so, of Republicans, who are ideologically disposed to believing that what is good for corporate America is good for working Americans, AKA, the trickle down theory of economics. This is a fundamental difference between the two parties. And accounts for why in the past, the Democrats have held far more seats of power in D.C. than Republicans since the Great Depression.

That said, there have clearly been Democrats who have become stooges for the corporations. Bill Clinton for one, who signed the GLB Act, knowing full well the import of that act on the future if left in place. A great many Democrats in Congress also voted for it, playing the stooge for corporate financial concerns. So, I have to agree with you, many Democrats can be bought, and many can be induced to carry the water for corporations. As opposed to nearly all Republicans today falling into one camp or the other.

As the public ire over this increases in coming days and weeks and months, I suspect Republicans are going to bear the brunt of it, diminishing their new found hopes and designs for the 2010 elections. But, only if Dem’s find a way to blunt the obvious effects of the S.C. ruling before the elections. Otherwise, corporations will use this new freedom to support as many Republican corporate lackeys as possible and, both Republicans and the corporations will very deep into profits to secure that future for relationship for themselves. And we will witness Democrats fight this potential for all they are worth. That also reflects the fundamental difference between the two parties.

The minority party has little choice but become champions of the corporations if the corporations control the election outcomes by taking control of broadcast political speech, which they can afford to do. Obama’s announcement this week that the big financial institutions will pay for their contributions to the recession that cost so many workers their livlihoods, was a challenge to corporations that will not be overlooked come November’s elections. And this announcement preceded the Court’s ruling announcement.

President Obama has tasked his administration to find ways to blunt and negate this Supreme Court’s undermining of our democracy. Those who wish to send their representatives an email demanding support for Obama’s fight against this ruling should go to this link on the BarackObama.com web site, where they have an email set up for you to just add your ID information and send. It will automatically send the email to your representatives using your zip code.

Roy,
Liberals and Democrats unanimously oppose this SCOTUS ruling.

McConnell, Republican leader of the Senate, praised this decision as ‘restoring first amendment rights.’

The right wing owner of the Oregonian wrote an editorial praising the decision. Admittedly, it’s a confusing editorial. You can tell he knows there is something really messed up about corporations being allowed to give legislators unlimited amounts of money, but he cannot say so without facing what conservatism and Republicans have done. Like other conservatives and Republicans, he makes vague noises in favor of first amendment rights, while ignoring the fact that we’re talking about how conservatives and Republicans think money = free speech and corporations = flesh and blood humans.

The situation was already bad enough. We all get that. There are a lot of reasons to criticize Democrats, to be sure. However, This is a case where the Democrats and the liberals are our only hope.

phx8, accurately stated. The fix for this ruling can only come from Democrats, and Obama and Democrats, to their credit, have thrown down the gauntlet to fight this ruling through legal and legislative channels.

Like trying to be half-pregnant, IMO. You won’t get rid of Corporate Personhood, Money Is Free Speech, and campaign media ads law by ping-ponging the demreps. Gonna take a 3rd party, with a diff. - - -

Otherwise, we have the corpocracy we deserve.

Roy,
It would be great if a third party could intervene. I’d love to see the Greens step in. However, that’s not going to happen. If this ruling is allowed to stand unopposed, it will not take long for corporations to openly purchase the government.

Look at Dailykos. You’ll see outrage over this decision. Look at Free Republic. You’ll see satisfaction over a blow struck for ‘free speech.’

I can’t understand how anyone would think it’s perfectly ok for Exxon to give a Senator a billion dollars as an example of a person exercising free speech. This ruling would allow it, and conservatives and Republicans will let it happen.

Roy, your last comment leaves no room for hope, because while the political environment is ripe for the rise of a independent centrist moderate third party, the political system will bring all it can to bear to prevent such a party from rising up.

Corporations are absolutely dependent upon the federal government in far more ways than they even they are aware. After all, the object of their avarice is controlled by the federal government and treasury. This is leverage which can be used. Barney Franks and others are building the bars of such leverage as I type.

If corporations think they just got a green light to take over, they haven’t a clue of the crapstorm of a fight that Democrats are about to wage upon them using everything from money supply and trade agreements approval or rejection to laws governing taxation of overseas holdings. All these and more are Constitutional and powers which corporations are dependent upon the federal government for. Security for a corporations overseas operations is another dependency, transparency of corporate financial data is another, and the list goes on and on.

If corporate America wants to challenge Democrats and the American people by exercising the liberty just granted them by the Supreme Court, they can pay dearly for it, and still be denied the long term objectives of taking over. Are Democrats and moderate Republicans like Snowe and Collins gutsy enough to employ these tactics on behalf of America’s democracy? We shall see, Roy. We shall see. But, we won’t have to wait long to see, given the November election season coming on fast.

But, then, I work at being a pragmatic optimist and remaining hopeful. I sleep better at night that way and my blood pressure remains in control.

phx8, I may be wrong, but, I believe the ruling only permits corporations to campaign on behalf of or against candidates, by name, but does not open the door to unlimited contributions to the candidates election campaign. IF I am right on my recollection of this, technically, corporations still cannot give unlimited funds directly to a candidate. But, with the ruling, why would they have to? They can run independent campaigns for or against any candidate they choose buying up entire media advertising for or against the candidates of their choosing.

I know I am being a bit pedantic here. But, this may become a very important distinction for opponents to be aware of in fighting the effects of this ruling.

David,
I believe you are right, & I stand corrected. As you point out, it is still an easy matter to a corporation to direct the money as needed in order to elect or defeat candidates. Some have suggested foreign contributors could work through multinational corporations to do the same.

phx8, that’s a wrinkle that Republicans will have to wrestle with as an unintended consequence, isn’t it?

The SC just legalized legislative extortion. It is a sad situation to say the least. The majority of us can now no longer be classified as middle class citizens. We just took on peasant status. I find it telling that the conservatives seem to be so quiet on this matter. Do you suppose they might be hiding in shame?

Roy I have noticed that at the least Alan Grayson, a Dem, is in the process of introducing legislation to help those corporations that want to use shareholders money for political purposes to help them spend 5 times what they spend on politics. So if, as conservatives say, money is free speech then who could be against a bill that would allow these companies to have more free speech.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/14/alan-grayson-introduces-b_n_423658.html

No Republican entries speaks volumes.

RickIl, the corporate extortion began in ernest in the 1980’s. That is the decade that T. Kennedy, T. O’Neill and many other Democrats came under the sway of the corporations.

I believe the rulling will help the two party’s as parties adjust to voting out incumbents.

Sad day for the Union!
I’m curious to see how the teabaggers take this. Some of the grass roots will not like it. Another split. This might be the one thing that can bring the far right and the far left together.

One idea I’ve heard is a bill saying if you do business with the government you can’t participate in the elections. I hope that’s constitutional.

Representative Grayson was ready for this Supreme Court decision, and he immediately introduced five bills to prevent corporations from running amok. See j2t2’s link to Huffpo.

Conservatives are restrained in celebrating this. They frame it as a victory for free speech. Yet they cannot help but notice that no human being is standing up to say ‘thanks for preserving my first amendment rights.’ If forced to mention that this involves free speech for corporations in the form of money, they invariably include labor unions and non-profits in the phrase. However, most people recognize labor unions and non-profits have a fraction of the money available to corporations.

If the SCOTUS decision is allowed to stand, conservatives and Republicans are pleased to think it may result in the defeat of liberal Democrats in large media markets, such as Boxer in CA. Once again, somewhere in the back of their mind, on some level, they know that crushing liberals and Democrats does not necessarily mean it is they who are winning… Because it is not their free speech that was protected, it was that of corporations, in the form of money.

The real issue is not that money is ‘free speech’, I think that an argument can be made for that as even David has done. So in itself, the decision is not bad. It is a result of the decision that is the problem because of the WORSE decision that corporations and groups share individual protection under our laws.

The real ‘solution’ would be to remove this protection of corporations and groups. Only individuals should have their free speech protected and corporations/groups should not be allowed to be involved in elections (which, btw, is what our laws USED to say).

So, IMO, the decision is correct if examined the way I think that the Supreme Court decided it, but the result of the decision is that we have to refocus on what the laws regarding who is protected by free speech say.

Finally, I find it VERY interesting that it was ok for Obama to totally reject the notion of campaign finance laws, gaining a huge advantage in his election campaign last year, yet now be somehow ‘aghast’ at this decision…

Delusional think abounds! Where is Joel when we need him? Rhinehold, you seem to agree corporations aren’t human. Look at how the CP law came into being. Wiki excerpt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
The decisions reached by the Supreme Court are promulgated to the legal community by way of books called United States Reports. Preceding every case entry is a headnote, a short summary in which a court reporter summarizes the opinion as well as outlining the main facts and arguments. For example, in U.S. v. Detroit Timber and Lumber (1905), headnotes are defined as “not the work of the Court, but are simply the work of the Reporter, giving his understanding of the decision, prepared for the convenience of the profession.”[5]
The court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, wrote the following as part of the headnote for the case:
“The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.”[6]
In other words, corporations enjoyed the same rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as did natural persons.[7] However, this issue is absent from the court’s opinion itself.
Before publication in United States Reports, Davis wrote a letter to Chief Justice Morrison Waite, dated May 26, 1886, to make sure his headnote was correct:
Dear Chief Justice, I have a memorandum in the California Cases Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific &c As follows. In opening the Court stated that it did not wish to hear argument on the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to such corporations as are parties in these suits. All the Judges were of the opinion that it does.[8]
Waite replied:
I think your mem. in the California Railroad Tax cases expresses with sufficient accuracy what was said before the argument began. I leave it with you to determine whether anything need be said about it in the report inasmuch as we avoided meeting the constitutional question in the decision.[9]
C. Peter Magrath, who discovered the exchange while researching Morrison C. Waite: The Triumph of Character, writes “In other words, to the Reporter fell the decision which enshrined the declaration in the United States Reports…had Davis left it out, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac[ific] R[ailroad] Co. would have been lost to history among thousands of uninteresting tax cases.”[10]
Author Jack Beatty wrote about the lingering questions as to how the reporter’s note reflected a quotation that was absent from the opinion itself.
Why did the chief justice issue his dictum? Why did he leave it up to Davis to include it in the headnotes? After Waite told him that the Court ‘avoided’ the issue of corporate personhood, why did Davis include it? Why, indeed, did he begin his headnote with it? The opinion made plain that the Court did not decide the corporate personality issue and the subsidiary equal protection issue.[11]
[edit] Decision
The court’s actual decision was uncontroversial. A unanimous decision issued by Justice ruled on the matter of fences — in that the state of California illegally included the fences running beside the tracks in its assessment of the total value of the railroad’s property. As a result, the county could not collect taxes from Southern Pacific that it was not allowed to collect in the first place.[12]
The Supreme Court never reached the equal protection claims. Nonetheless, this case is sometimes incorrectly cited as holding that corporations, as juristic persons, are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.[13]
[edit] Significance
As such, it did not technically - in the view of most legal historians - have any legal precedential value.[14] However, the Supreme Court is not required by Constitution or even precedent to limit its rulings to written statements.
Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1949, “the Santa Clara case becomes one of the most momentous of all our decisions.. Corporations were now armed with constitutional prerogatives.”
Justice Hugo Black wrote “in 1886, this Court in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, decided for the first time that the word ‘person’ in the amendment did in some instances include corporations…The history of the amendment proves that the people were told that its purpose was to protect weak and helpless human beings and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of state governments…The language of the amendment itself does not support the theory that it was passed for the benefit of corporations.” End excerpt:
Jammed down our throat, under a cloud, conflict of interest, like nearly every bill or edict that makes it into law these days.
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

Mike Falino, well, yes there is hope. The largest bloc of disgusted voters are now euphemistically referred to as Independents. Question is, which way will they head out – Rep, TEA Party, or other. Going nowhere unless they can establish a 21st century 3rd party with an attitude of ‘they work for us’, members oversight provision and accountability for incumbents, etc. Almost to a person people on this blog view 3rd parties as insignificant, in the way. IMO, a 3rd party will happen with about the same speed and demeanor as the Mass scenario.
Phx8, you wrote: “The situation was already bad enough. We all get that. There are a lot of reasons to criticize Democrats, to be sure. However, This is a case where the Democrats and the liberals are our only hope.” Please pause for a little lol this end. You seem to think that if we can just take back this latest SCJ move then we can all get along. Delusional, as Joel would say. Remer, leave me along, I’m on a roll. Phx8, here is an excerpt from today’s Wash Post. “This week the SC struck down the laws in 22 states and overturned key decisions from 1990 and 2003.” Further, “another big campaign finance case soon likely to reach the high court would test the ban on ‘soft money’ contributions to political parties, last upheld by the court in 2003.” The Rep position on this new effort is that to have a chance of matching O’s small donations “we need to be on an equal footing, and we think this law (McCain-Feingold) keeps us from doing that.” Sort of one-upsmanship with the taxpayer/voter being played the fool, IMO.
Phx8, the Greens are just another vanilla political party. No amenities as I recall. Take about one year to co-opt their effort. Our ONLY solution, IMO, is a 3rd party w/amenities - - -

David, you wrote : “I wrote here for years that they were destroying our economic future.” Surely you recall Bill Clinton working to put globalization into play, WTO and all. And, what are the dem’s doing at the moment? ‘Threatening’ to go to the people and raise (raze) their nickels and dimes to balance out the new SCJ ruling. Rather than consider anti-trust (the dem’s did their part in outsourcing mfctring and jobs) they rush to beg the people for shekels to offset the SCJ ruling. Isn’t that just precious? I like to use that expression when I’m pissed and knowing I can’t get banned with such a lame outburst.
No Gergle, it happened in 1886. You are off by a few years.
Rickil, no shame, just jubilation by the demreps/Corpocracy.
J2t2, don’t understand, but the bill allows corps to bundle with no identity revealed. I believe the majority of folks believe the CP and MIFS is at the heart of any real reform to remove the money influence from politics. The demrep’s simply cannot ever deliver such reform and I believe the majority feels the same. Also, no vanilla 3rd party, or parties can deliver such reform. Therefore, let’s design a party that lead to the abolishment of CP and MIFS, thereby restricting the money influence, allowing for real campaign finance (donations by PEOPLE only), members oversight to prevent corruptive influences, and put accountability into the political equation. You’d think I’d get tired of floggin the keyboard re 3rd party amenities - - but, it just keeps coming!
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Rhinehold, I agree with you that returning to the position in which political speech is only protected for individuals, is the optimal solution.

However, it remains to be seen if such legislation would stand the test of this S.C.

What are you referencing when you say Obama totally rejected campaign finance laws? I recall him rejecting corporate money for his campaign, but, that was not a rejection of campaign finance laws. That was all about securing his candidacy from the people, instead. Please explain, perhaps this is something I missed last year.

From the people? Like the nearly 1 million dollars he received from Goldman Sach?

Obama’s top source of funds was investment bank giant Goldman Sachs, whose employees, partners, and executives gave him $995,000 — that’s the most any politician has raised from any one company in a single election since the age of “soft money” ended.

Or, did you really buy into the hype that he funded his campaign on the backs of individual donors? Donors who gave small enough amounts that no one had to check if they were actually real people or not?

Now, take a look around at a good percentage of the people in his administration and where they worked before…

He received the most money of any candidate from the Wall Street Bankers and Healthcare Industry.

“>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Beware-the-Goldman-Sachs-populist-82293977.html

DOW is hurtling toward 10k. Is China threatening to close the cash box? Jeff Toobin, CNN, just made a point worth considereing. Corps’ like Budweiser, foreign owned, can take advantage of the SCJ ruling using unlimited funds. Free Speech ya NO!

O(therwise, we have the - - -

Glenn Beck is showing his 1st documentary, 5pm EST today. About the =ism’s and he sez its stuff we haven’t seen before. I’m gonna watch.

Roy, you must not have read The World is Flat, by Freidman, or you would not be dissing Clinton’s globalization objectives. Globalization was occurring with, or without our participation, as a result of international trade, international corporations, and international banking, as well as the varying competitive labor markets and cost of production. I am not defending Clinton’s policies, per se. His trade agreements did not bargain sufficiently for trade advantage that would have offset for the American workers, their loss of higher paying jobs for lower paying ones.

Clinton screwed up. So, did Bush before him and Bush after him. But, globalization was already underway, and Clinton’s stated objective was to negotiate for lower consumer prices for American workers who would lose jobs to overseas markets regardless. With the advent of China and India’s industrialization, American workers have enjoyed Wal-Mart’s lower china import prices as an offset. But, against a backdrop of declining real wages for the last 45 years, it was wholly insufficient a trade off for high paying manufacturing jobs. Those jobs were going to be lost to automation if they remained here, anywhere. So, on net, I am not sure it would have even been possible in the 90’s to negotiate better deals than we received.

Now the NAFTA agreement and Central American agreements are where negotiations went off the deep end, IMO.

Trade agreements like the one that results in causing Haitians to buy American cotton instead of growing their own and building their own economy so that they might be better able to handle their own country’s needs in a time of crisis?

Gotta protect American farmers after all…

Roy, the markets are reacting to Obama’s war on the banks just announced and a shake up in the commodity markets. Also, the markets have been hurtling toward a correction for some time now as equity pricing got too far out ahead of actual earnings for many companies. Don’t read into a few days trading long term trends. That is almost ALWAYS an enormous mistake.

In simplified terms, the thrust of the regulation is to prohibit commercial banks (banks that take consumer deposits) from also being investment banks. So, Bank of America and Chase would both be restricted in their ability to play the investment bank game they currently play. Although Goldman Sachs is technically a bank holding company, it’s not really a commercial bank. By simply returning to its old status as strictly an investment bank, Goldman could free itself of the regulations that would apply to its competitors.

When I look at Goldman’s staggering 2009 profits, I suspect some of their success comes from the fact that they have much of the field to themselves in the wake of Merrill Lynch’s collapse and the general retrenchment in the finance world. Regulations that crowd out JP Morgan and Bank of America would leave Goldman even freer of competition. This is how regulation often functions: driving out smaller competitors and keeping out new entrants, thus preserving profitability by alleviating competitive pressures.

Rather than sticking it to Goldman, Obama — the all-time top recipient of Goldman money — could be helping the firm with these regulations.

Rhinehold, you are completely misreading your own quote. The quote says that money came from individuals within the giant Goldman Sachs, not the coffers of Goldman Sachs shareholder profits. Do you not recognize the difference between corporate donations and individual donations to a campaign.

Are you trying to make the case that any individual who contributes from their private funds and is employed, should have their contribution designated as their employer’s contribution? That is absurd. George Soros was capable of giving a large amount as an individual, without using any corporate funds.

And besides, 1 million was a drop in the bucket compared to what he raised from the grass roots, overall.

And I still fail to see any relevance or reference in your reply to your assertion that he rejected campaign finance laws, which was my inquiry.

David wrote : “American workers have enjoyed Wal-Mart’s lower china import prices as an offset. But, against a backdrop of declining real wages for the last 45 years, it was wholly insufficient a trade off for high paying manufacturing jobs. Those jobs were going to be lost to automation if they remained here, anywhere. So, on net, I am not sure it would have even been possible in the 90’s to negotiate better deals than we received.”

That’s a WOW David. World’s greatest xfer of wealth in history for good prices at Wally-World. Thank you Bill Clinton. Well, O’ could have pushed for a VAT on trade, same as another 143 countries around the world have had the sense to do. That would immediately bring into balance our trade deficit that has been negative for about a hunert yers. Must be some reason why not? Could it be that it is necessary to break the back of the middle class to enable us to compete in the globalized economy? Are you to $5/hr yet David? If not, then standby for more of the same. Say, I didn’t vote to follow the EU down the path of utopiaism. Did you get a vote? A debate? Did you lose your annuity, have your pension annuled, loose the equity in your home, your job? Then theirs health insurance, education, etc. Makes me want to run down to WM and buy a bag of lolly pops. Big sale on ya know. Thing is, I ain’t about to buy a lolly pop if its ferign made. Now I shop at two or more grocers as WC is pushing their brand only, no labels as to where it come from. Just stocking their brand only in more and more items. I’ll give Clinton another 20-30 years but if he don’t help straighten things out I might write a letter to my reps, etc.

Roy, what you suggest should have happened would have resulted in trade wars and barriers, and shortages in America resulting in inflation. And nothing hurts a workers wages more than inflation, to many consumers pursuing too few goods.

We could do what you say today and raise our import prices through tariffs, but, and it may, though probably not, bring our trade deficit into balance. But, the negative consequences of taking that route create enormous opportunity costs for low and middle class consumers who currently stretch their wage dollar on the back of cheap imports.

Look, I understand this race to the bottom on wages and monopolistic seeking pricing is moving our nation in the wrong direction. But, overpopulation of the world has it’s own inescapable opportunity costs, and the economic demographics operating today giving BRIC countries enormous trade, manufacturing, and export advantage is the hidden cost the world is paying for overpopulating the human species requiring global interdependence upon each other for the resources which they cannot provide as cost effectively for themselves.

Our energy dependence was a perfect example. These opportunity costs most people are not aware of and don’t get included in their calculus and projection of courses of action. China is controlling its population growth and securing raw resources it can’t provide for itself through trade agreements with nations around the world. China is taking care of its future by increasing human labor productivity and living standards while controlling future growth in demand by controlling their population growth.

America was either going to give up capitalism and free enterprise or, refusing that, suffer the consequences of China’s industrial and technical revolution built upon competitively advantaged lower costs for human capital. There was NO WAY AROUND this, no matter how you sliced the foreign trade pie. China recognized decades ago that its greatest strength today over-population resulting in cheap labor, will also be its greatest liability going forward into the future. China is taking advantage of current advantages while mitigating their opportunity costs and future liabilities in their longer term policy and strategy.

America would be well advised to do the same with the resources we currently have, outstanding higher learning centers and capitalize into the future the channeling of ever more American born citizens through those institutions, instead of erecting enormous cost barriers to our own citizens attending, while our devalued dollar makes it cheap for foreign students to avail themselves of our higher education centers.

America simply fails at short and long term merged strategy. That is because corporations who are interested only in short term gains, have such control over our nation’s policy directions. Clinton’s greatest flaw and error was in signing that Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. But, he and Democrats did try to invest in American public education only to have it reversed by the Bush administration.

Now our nation is mired in reactionary policy to compensate for two wars, a recession, and a political war going on in our society and government that preempts any kind of real and productive policy investments in our future. I remain hopeful, but, I continue to prod my daughter to be ready and prepared to move to Brazil for her career and more productive and higher quality life than she may find here in America in 15 to 20 years.

Rhinehold, if the Haitian economy was built upon cotton production, their economy would be in shambles today, as it is already. Haitian history is complex and fraught with plagues which America has not faced in over a century. To try to establish today’s American standards and methodologies in Haiti, would largely be a fool’s errand. Exporting the American model to other nations without regard for the significant differences between nations, is foolhardy and greatly increases the liklihood of failure in the attempt. See Iraq as a prime example.

Haiti had begun to establish trade relations and a warming up of political relations with its neighbor the Dominican Republic in the last 10 years. That was a most appropriate course of action for Haiti to take en route to building a viable economy, partially based on tourism, which can quickly recover from the kinds of natural disasters their nation would typically incur on an ongoing basis. Of course, this earth quake was exceptional, not having occurred last at this magnitude since the 19th century.

Haiti is a small geographic land mass surrounded by salt water, and regularly visited by tidal swells and hurricanes. Haiti’s economy must be built around these realities, allowing and compensating for them. Cotton production is not a sound basis for their economy.

That said, the Haitian government made the trade agreement with the U.S. We didn’t invade their nation and put a gun to their head forcing them to sign that trade agreement. As one of the poorest nations on earth, Haiti’s choices will continue to be difficult. You can say they were coerced, but, when you are the poorest nation on earth, everything you do to improve your situation carries the tint of coercion by the absence of better choices enjoyed by wealthier nations.

Some Haitians are now saying Thank You for this earthquake as it presents an opportunity for building an economic infrastructure with international assistance that never would have existed without the earthquake. It also provides Haitians the opportunity to build some of that infrastructure to withstand the next big earthquake. This was reported on NPR this evening with interviews of Haitians.

David,

I would slightly alter that statement. Haitian’s aren’t saying thank you for the earthquake, they are saying they appreciate the opportunity for a fresh start. Not exactly the same thing.

gergle, sorry, but NPR recorded in interviews Haitians actually saying, thank you for the earth quake, as their bleak future prior to the earth quake ignored by the world, has been made dramatically more hopeful.

You can alter their statements if you wish, but, their statements stand as stated on recordings by the interviewers. Such statements emanate from an inordinately deep well of optimism and hope in the Haitian character, no doubt resulting from their horrifically violent and exploited history.

One might actually draw a parallel between this attitude of the Haitian people and the revolutionary colonialists in America around 1750’s, when hope sprung eternal against the most powerful nation of England.

David,

Ja, man. Laissez les bon temps rolle!:)

Sometimes I overreact with sarcasm. I’m just saying you are an articulate English speaker, many Haitians are not. A wise man listens carefully and interprets loosely.

Not many are appreciative of misery and suffering and loss; those that do, well they are a bit macabre.

gergle, it is a given they are not thankful for the death and destruction and personal fear and suffering in and of itself. They are thankful, to be literal, for the international spotlight finally being focused in their plight with enormous good will flowing in to help them.

Yeah, I can’t write like that David, so I’ll rely on Pat Choate’s ‘Saving Capitalism’. He says that one of the great hopes of globalization was that other nations would take the industries and jobs that Americans did not need or want, freeing up the Am. Workforce for high knowledge and high paying service industry jobs. Certainly, that was a promise made by lawmakers when they enacted laws and policies that supported the outsourcing of so many industries.
Taking tens of millions of US workers with HS educations or less and converting them into high tech workers was, of course, a pipe dream. Indeed, it was a cruel hoax even the most intellectually uncurious members of Congress easily should have figured out was nothing but propaganda from banks and corporations wanting to outsource jobs to nations with low wages.
He notes that for 2008 we exported $139B more in services than we imported and imported l$820B more in goods than we exported. A six to one ratio, showing this deception on the public is comparable to Wall Street’s repackaging subprime mortgages and selling them triple-A bonds.
Further, he writes, A great danger faced by Am. and the Obama administration will arrive in mid-2010 and early 2011 when today’s economic stimulus expenditures begin to expire. The political urge will be to declare that prosperity is just around the corner when it is not. Our economic reality now is national decline. Extraordinary emergency actions over many years are required. If they are not taken, millions more jobs will be lost, the national debt will continue to grow, and Am’s capacity to recuperate will be further diminished. Action now is the only sensible loophole.
I recently posted that Walker, ex-GAO chief said we had less than 5 years to address the budget deficit.
More from Pat: Wall St. today is fully capable of creating another worldwide economic meltdown. When the next opportunity for financial reform comes, the priority should be reform first and bailouts second. If the US squanders the privilege of having its dollar as the world’s reserve currency, another Great Depression is inevitable.
The idea that these mfctring industries will never return is simply self-serving nonsense put forth by the outsourcers and their propagandists. The proucers should bring the work and jobs back to the US or domestic-based suppliers should be encouraged to take their places. Building a state-of-the art US mfctring economy would be a quick way to reignite the economy.
On the VAT he writes: The major diff between the three tax systems is that only the VAT would be instantly compatible with WTO treaties. Overnight, the tariff-like VAT barriers to US exports that now exist in 153 nations would disappear. Also, foreign government VAT rebates (subsidies) on goods and services exported into the US would be instantly neutralized. —- The VAT can provide enough revenue—at lower tax rates and with a decreased burden on taxpayers, greater fairness, and far lower compliance costs—to balance the federal budget annually and to begin paying down the national debt. A VAT would also make a major contribution toward reducing the huge US trade deficit.

David wrote: “Roy, what you suggest should have happened would have resulted in trade wars and barriers, and shortages in America resulting in inflation.” Not inferring wholesale tariffs on everything, just let the steam off slowly. This wholesale capitulation of offshoring industry has caused far more devastation than a controlled trade approach ever would.
You wrote: “But, overpopulation of the world has it’s own inescapable opportunity costs, —the world is paying for overpopulating the human species requiring global interdependence upon each other for the resources which they cannot provide as cost effectively for themselves.” I think the majority agree with that but the Corpocracy seems to think we need more people since illegal and legal immigration is the leading factor in US population growth. Does that make sense to you? Any suggestions as to why?
You wrote: “Our energy dependence was a perfect example. These opportunity costs most people are not aware of and don’t get included in their calculus and projection of courses of action.” How is it that the military can drag around the world and install hydrogen power plants for their kitchens and field hospitals, etc? Same for US hydrogen cars that nobody will mass produce? And, what about natural gas? There must be a reason.
You wrote: “America was either going to give up capitalism and free enterprise or, refusing that, suffer the consequences of China’s industrial and technical revolution built upon competitively advantaged lower costs for human capital. There was NO WAY AROUND this, no matter how you sliced the foreign trade pie.” Few Am’s are willing to trash capitalism. My post above clearly explains why we don’t need to do that. But, this giving away of our sovereignty, our Constitution, at the whim of the Corpocracy, these are things we will not get back easily, if ever. Great stupidty, IMO.

You wrote: “America would be well advised to do the same with the resources we currently have, outstanding higher learning centers and capitalize into the future the channeling of ever more American born citizens through those institutions, instead of erecting enormous cost barriers to our own citizens attending, while our devalued dollar makes it cheap for foreign students to avail themselves of our higher education centers.” I agree that the Corpocracy is leveraging taxpayer dollars to subsidize the education of furners in great numbers while trying to shut the door for US students. From Pat Choate: “Am. Workers posses more knowledge and greater skills than what will be required for the new jobs that are projected to be available in 2025. —-Am. Is about to reap a bitter harvest from the long-term racial discrimination, failed educational systems, and political indifference.”
You wrote: “America simply fails at short and long term merged strategy. That is because corporations who are interested only in short term gains, have such control over our nation’s policy directions.” Choate notes that the US Treas. Sec and FTC are fleeting political appointees and are no match for the State-Absolutism trading partners using long-time career specialists in their trade negotiations.
Fight or flight, yes. But, let’s not just sit on our hands waiting for something to happen, or it surely will. For instance, what about a 3rd party that would identify Haiti’s needs, and work with the gov. and people to build something useful toward their self-development. Educate some and send them back to develop their own country. Why should Asia suck up all the industrial jobs when there are poor folks all around the world. Let’s not be brain dead because the Corpocracy likes it that way.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Investors are always wanting better returns from their investments. Many of them are seeking investment opportunities in foreign markets and low wage workers. Quite a number of those also like to complain about the corpocracy, the outsourcing of jobs to those markets, the massive influx of illegal low wage workers and what it is doing to the middle and lower working classes. They don’t see or don’t want to see a conflict of interests.

I wonder what our government would do if 5 or 10 years down the road the Chinese goverment decides to boot their foreign corporate partners out into the ocean to sink, doggy paddle or swim? We can’t cut off trade, WalMart’s shelves would be empty in a week.

There are many contradictions, misconceptions and outright lies in our society today.

Democrats argued that we had to bailout GM to save all those jobs. From what I have been hearing GM is investing in several new factories in both China and India and are preparing to offer all their American workers a severance package. Your tax dollars at work.

The Obama Administration plans large increases in education spend. That is both good and bad.

By any standards one cares to apply, the Detroit school system is an abysmal failure. Obama want’s millions in new spending for the system. That might help build a few new schools, hire more teachers and administrators (well paying liberal jobs for the most part), Pay raises all across the board and if we are really lucky the high school dropout rate might fall below 70%. your tax dollars at work.

How is it possible for these children to have an equal opportunity for education and success with YOUR children when many of them live in poverty, run the daily two way gauntlet of street corner drug deals and drive by shootings? The two most lucretive opportunites for success these children see are drug dealing and pimping. What would happen to YOUR children if they had to live in that kind of an environment?

The greatest American lie: everyone has an equal opportunity for success.

Only way for the middle class and poor is to support a 3rd party with a different political attitude. Call it globalization, a conspiracy, following the EU down the primrose trail, call it what you will, but its clear the Corpocracy will continue with their effort to break the back of the middle class worker in preparing for competition with the cheap labor markets of the world. We can sit on our cans and wait to see what the outcome is but that ain’t for me. I think Glenn Beck is closer to the truth than many want to realize, socialism big time.
Education? Big government has ruined the education system, bloated, ineffectual and has put higher education out of reach for too many.
How does a government lower expectations for a population? Drugs, gangs, high crime, poor education, all that 3rd world country stuff we used to hear about back in the 60’s. Put up an ear and what do we hear?
‘Oh, we can chase these gangs out.
‘Oh, we can’t get rid of the drugs.
‘Oh, we can control all this crime.
All we hear is ‘we can’t do this and we can’t do that’. Agree, can’t never could do anything.
But, they sure can piss away the last dregs of wealth in this country. Not so much with jobs. They are suggesting we are having a recovery, a jobless recovery. The Corpocracy has no plans to create jobs, never did. Every book I’ve read points to the fact that as long as we play in the globalization arena there is no way real jobs can be created in this country.
No point in more tautology. When people are in the street by the millions and starving they will come to their senses. Question is, will it be too late to save the Republic?
Hillary just made an hour long speech on cspan today pushing for government control of Internet connectivity so they can control ‘radicals and extremist’ I think Lou Dobbs just dodged a bullet.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Getting back on thread, this past week the Supreme Court Justice’s ruled that corporations and unions can make direct contributions to fund campaign ads. This brings into question this whole idea about freedom of speech and corporations having some human rights under law. Let’s get down on this issue.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Doesn’t say printed text or a video image portraying a textual format. Just says speech. Speech is a product of the human voice box, caused by constricting and relaxing the muscles of the throat along with the complex movement of the mouth, tongue and lips. Speech can be recorded and reproduced. Speech is derived from someone’s voice. A person’s voice is comprised of complex sound waves, traveling about 1170 feet per second. Voice frequencies may range from approx 100Hz to 5kHz, largely dependent as to male or female. The amplitude of one’s voice may range from near 0dBa uperwards of 90dBa, or equivalent to a loud scream directly into your ear.
So, how could a corporation come to have the right of freedom of speech? Corporation defined: A fictitious legal entity/person which has rights and duties independent of the rights and duties of real persons and which is legally authorized to act in its own name through duly appointed agents. Like a real person, a corporation can enter into contracts, sue and be sued, pay taxes separately from its owners, and do the other things necessary to conduct business.
It seems that in 1886 a court in Santa Clara, Calif. decided that corporations should be given some of the same rights as humans including freedom of speech. The law was approved by the court under a cloud, using a court reporter’s written remarks on the edge of a paper relating to the case as an approval statement by the court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
Justice Hugo Black wrote “in 1886, this Court in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, decided for the first time that the word ‘person’ in the amendment did in some instances include corporations…The history of the amendment proves that the people were told that its purpose was to protect weak and helpless human beings and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of state governments…The language of the amendment itself does not support the theory that it was passed for the benefit of corporations.
So, few objected to the law and the passage of time enhanced its legality. Unlike people, corporations live on in perpetuity. So, in looking for another bite at the apple corporations went to court on another issue. The US Supreme Court, in its 1976 decision in the case Buckley v. Valeo, essentially concluded that money spent to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech. How does one equate money to speech? You can flap it around, squeeze it, sit on it, but you can’t get any sounds from it resembling speech. The Constitution nor the Bill of Rights makes no mention of Money being related to speech.
This past week the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions can spend unlimited funds on campaign ads for, or against a political candidate or incumbent. They can bundle these funds with other corporations and do not have to divulge their name in doing so. Foreign owned companies, such as Budweiser, can avail themselves of this freedom of speech law. The two major political machines, now collecting on an international scale, are urging the public to offset this seeming imbalance by opening their wallets to match the influence of the national and international conglomerates.
Most six year olds would understand the one person, one vote universal principle.
Most adults would understand that corporations are not human, are no endeared with freedom of speech in the Constitution.
Most judges would understand that giving corporations and unions, on a worldwide scale, the ability to collect, bundle and direct funds for campaign ads at specific politicians violates every concept of the Constitution.
Leaves one with the compelling notion that the SCJ’s are more judicial activists than wise and learned judges. Indeed, the Corpocracy is on a roll and will soon be back for another bite at the apple.
That’s why we need the Republic Sentry Party, guardian of the Republic. A party with a different political attitude. A party that can achieve reform of government, provide for members oversight of elected/appointed officials and put accountability into the political equation.
Pat Choate, in ‘Saving Capitalism’ says we have until 2011-12 to address our budget deficit or expect worse conditions than the Great Depression. Ex-GAO Chief, Walker says we have less than 5 years to act before we reach an unsustainable situation. Enough to get me moving. I suggest, at first light, we begin work on a party that can achieve reforms to ensure our survival as a Republic.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

One of programs Hil wants to put in place on the Internet is a program where citizens of a country can rate their government, give them a grade. Supposedly the Fed will take a look at the stats and decide which government will get support money. Your tax dollars being used to decide where overseass to send your tax dollars. Sounds kinda liberal/socialist to me.
Jon, the Corpocracy has had 30 years or so, starting with the Regan admin to deliver on their globalization policy. Here we are and do you see the light at the end of the tunnel? What are we to do, wait another 30 years to see what happens? Government reform, now, through a 3rd party is the only solution, IMO.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

What I see at the end of the tunnel is next financial ripoff, meltdown, bailout and robbery of the American people. We the people have short term memories and we are gluttons for punishment. We really can’t deny that we aren’t deserving of all this good governing by our two party system.

agree jlw, respected spokespersons are saying we’ve got a very few years, five or less, to get our house in order. We should accept that the time has run out for the Corpocracy and that action is needed. I’ve been doing a lot of talking, what action do you think should be taken?

Well Roy, here on WatchBlog this discussion has been ongoing for years now. If you go back into American history you will see that this basic discussion, what to do about wealth’s influence on government has been going since the founding of the country. What have we done about it? We have done very little about it and in many instances what little we have done has been reversed by our two political parties or the SC. Couple that with the Fact that attention deficit disorder is number one illness aflicting our people and demagogery is number two, gives me very little hope that we will do anything.

I used to be more prolific on this and other topics but lately I’ve gotten warn down and more cynical because I know that we aren’t going to do much of anything about it, at least not unless wealth and power get so greedy that they decide we can live without bread.

I have promoted public financing for forty years now but neither party is the least bit interested and in fact are adamantly opposed to it so it must be a good idea. I like the idea of referendum voting. I would love it if the people had the ability to have votes of confidence. I think that would really shake the foundation.

I like the third party idea but I’m a progressive workers party type. I think five or six parties might be more appropriate. more choices produce more voices.

I’ve bought into David R’s vote out incumbents but I would rather vote none of the above or for M I C K E Y than vote to swap a Democrat for a Republican or the opposit. I could vote for a Democrat if I thought he/she was a progressive rather than a neo-liberal which is what many of our liberal politicians have become. I wouldn’t vote for a Republican under any circumstances.

With the recent SC decision, voting out incumbents becomes less effective, The Republicrats and their corporate overseers can work with it, in and out of the revolving door from corporation to government and back to corporation, term limits with a 6 to 8 figure bonus for a job well done.

I guess I should say something about revolution, I think it is a possibility in a right-wing populist nationalist way which plays right into the hands of the corpocracy.

When we talk about corpocracy we should be frank because it is the share holders from the smallest to the largest that are the enablers. Have you ever heard of share holders selling their stock in a corporation because it is bribing our government?

bootscardy was that a paid advertisement?

jlw said: “With the recent SC decision, voting out incumbents becomes less effective”

I don’t think that is true, jlw. Quite the opposite. Anti-incumbent voting will run in opposition to corporate world dictating who to vote for with the multi-million dollar ad campaigns to persuade voters otherwise.

Sure, a part of the time, the anti-incumbent challenger may be the candidate the corporate world is backing. But, the corporate world will be working not only to elect, but, reelect their stooges. And the anti-incumbent independent voters will not allow that. The power of their deep pockets will be nullified by the independent anti-incumbent voters, if there are enough of them.

Roy, you make some great arguments and cite sources well.

One issue however, isn’t logical. You state: “The idea that these mfctring industries will never return is simply self-serving nonsense put forth by the outsourcers and their propagandists. The proucers should bring the work and jobs back to the US or domestic-based suppliers should be encouraged to take their places.”

In order to bring back the manufacturing jobs with their commensurately higher American living standard wages, you would have create a market for those items to be sold in America at a higher price than foreign nations could sell them here for. In order to create that market, you would have to erect trade barriers blocking the lower price competitive products from importing into the U.S. This would obviously set of trade barrier wars.

And there’s the rub. America has depleted so many of the raw resources we need to keep our economy and living standards. Oil is the most obvious one. But, platinum, titanium, copper, aluminum and many others have to be imported in part or whole. If we blockade foreign imports of competitively priced manufactured goods, they in turn will blockade raw resource exports to the U.S., as we did to Japan prior to WWII, which precipitated the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Globalization can be managed through international cooperation, but, it cannot be reversed, UNLESS and UNTIL, the global economy fails. Of course, if that happens, the Great Depression will look like a banquet laden garden party in comparison, due to the world’s population having tripled since then.

jlw said: “I wonder what our government would do if 5 or 10 years down the road the Chinese goverment decides to boot their foreign corporate partners out into the ocean to sink, doggy paddle or swim? We can’t cut off trade, WalMart’s shelves would be empty in a week.”

There’s the rub. The economy is like our earth’s environment, infinitely variable and each variable interdependent upon the others. Makes grasping the import and impact of policy changes way over the education of most voting Americans, including many or most of our elected representatives. Economics uses complex math to correlate variable dependencies, but, economic theories are little more than creative fiction to justify a particular advantage the theory’s proponent wishes to benefit from.

Supply side economics is pure fiction except, in those rare circumstances when the economy is flagging for lack of available capital to meet demand and taxes are the main culprit for that shortage of capital. In all other circumstances, the theory is just plain wrong, stupid, and guaranteed to produce unwanted results if applied by the nation’s consuming work force.

Kenesian economic theory is a bit broader in circumstantial application, but, it too, is limited in successful application by both the infinite co-dependence of economic variables, and demand constrictions impeding economic growth primarily due to inordinately high taxes constricting that demand, as opposed to some other variable like consumer’s premium on savings over consumption, which is the circumstance we are in now.

Both these theories when applied, and most especially applied outside the appropriate economic context, will cause deficits and growth in the national debt. Not a problem as long as the credit rating of the federal government and its debt carrying capacity are not questioned. But, that is precisely why we are in such growing dire circumstances today. Our debt carrying capacity is now being questioned by our government’s lenders. They are still lending, but, asking themselves how much longer they can afford to to do so with assurance that the default risk is low? They are also asking, if the default risk suddenly jumped, would America be able to afford the interest on their massive debt in a climate of rapidly rising interest rates and refinancing that debt.

In summary, economics is a balancing act. And like jugglers, there is an artful skill in the coordination of multiple items hanging in the air simultaneously, requiring skilled coordination and exceptional estimation abilities as to where and when the next item will come down to be tossed back up.

Ben Bernanke, is one of those people who have and continue to hone that artful skill. Ironically, when his talents are needed most, partisan politicians are wanting to dump him in the hopes of asserting a supply or demand sider economist in his place to accommodate their politically motivated economic ideology which bears no relationship to the unique circumstances our nation finds itself in.

For the sake of the nation, Obama had better win this battle to keep Bernanke in place. The best economist to have in the Fed chair is one who knows well why ideological economic theories don’t work. Ben Bernanke is such an economist who has first hand learned that lesson.

To replace him would most likely put in place an economist who hasn’t learned the first hand lesson Bernanke has. The corporatists would replace him with a supply sider. The consumerists would replace him with a chicken in every pot populist.

Both, would be incredible mistakes. Our economy is not suffering from a lack of supply. Hence a supply sider would ruin our economy and destroy workers lives and wages while raising the debt through federal revenue cuts. Conversely, consumerists would raise the debt and deficits with federal dollar handouts, as much as 70% of which go into savings and investments instead of consumer behavior, having very little stimulative effect on demand growth.

The political problem here is one politicians can do little about. Jobs. The economy is growing. Jobs lag economic growth. It is a relationship that cannot be altered by political behavior. Job growth will return, with time, as the economy grows, provided wages don’t fall, and employers don’t, in the interim, replace future production capacity with automation instead of labor. Unfortunately, that is, in reality happening. Hence, job growth will be even slower in coming, requiring innovative new technologies to create new products for the market place in order to create a demand for human labor to make those products. But, in time, even those new jobs will be replaced by automation.

Trying to rush the job recovery in any way other than public works projects, is an exercise in futility at great expense. Kind of like trying to hasten the sunrise at midnight. The orbits dictate the sunrise well out of the control of human behavior. So, it is with job growth at the beginning of recovery from a recession.

jlw, I completely agree that campaign finance and clean elections are at the heart of our problems. And, we seem to agree the source of this specific problem is the interference of large donors, primarily corporations, institutions and the like. As my recent post in this thread relate, the influence of the moneyed interest has, incrementally, reached proportions where a government of the people can no longer function for the people, but works to serve the corporate masters.
You are correct that little has been done about it. One can sense the trend in this most recent SC decision. I think we both understand that this government cannot reform itself, will not reform itself. We will continue to have the best government money can buy as long as we support the Corpocracy. People have lost trust in government to operate on their behalf. Therefore, I believe REAL reform of government is required.
IMO, the ONLY solution to salvaging the Republic, Constitution and our democratic principles is to design a party that; (1) cannot be co-opted by the moneyed interest, (2) targets reform of government, void of hot button social issues, (3) provides for members oversight of elected officials and appointees, (4) puts accountability into the political equation.
I would hope, from standing up such a party, that other parties would be forced to organize in a similar way to remain competitive. As reforms are achieved, agendas would broaden to include social issues, allowing room for more competition among parties.
I believe that nothing can be accomplished in government until we have achieved campaign finance reform. If you look over Republic Sentry’s agenda you will see that campaign finance is right at the top. To reform campaign finance we must first remove the money influence. That can be done by either abolishing or modifying Corporate Personhood (CP) and by abolishing Money Is Free Speech. That puts us closer to the universal thought of one person, one vote. All donations must be submitted through the IRS. The IRS accounts, bundles and disburses funds to a reorganized FEC. This breaks the audit trail as to donors. The FEC plans and disburses funds to parties on some rational basis. Achieving clean elections is the primary, over-riding goal of Republic Sentry.
I recently posted that Pat Choate, Perots 2000 running mate, says we have perhaps five years to address the budget deficit before it becomes unsustainable. And, Ex-GAO, David Walker says if we don’t address the deficit by 2010-11 we will experience something far worse than the Great Depression. It ain’t just commentary, opinion and words on a screen from this point on jlw. Who knows what kind of government would evolve from such a catastrophe. Deadly serious stuff, IMO.
Otherwise we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

David, agree the SC decision is another cut to the body of the Republic. Was surprised that Jeff Sessions, (R-Al) believes it is a good decision. The decision adds to the splintering of the already diverse groups within government. The idea that foreign owned companies, corporations and unions can bundle their donations and contribute to funding ads aimed at supporting or defeating candidates and incumbents is, IMO, obscene. And, they can do this while remaining anonymous.
Revolution: A new start, a change from one system to another, perhaps in a radical way. I see the Republic Sentry Party as just that. A populist, centrist movement directed at a new start, a reform of government, radical – not so much but leave it to the reader.
Don’t agree on you view of Corpocracy. Shareholders may be indirectly causal to Corpocracy but the crux lies with the Executives and detached stake holders. I.e. who makes the decision to lobby government and on what topic and in what direction? Shareholders can lose their butt but Exec’s are immune from corporate failure under Corporate Personhood law. Likewise, Joe Citizen can be trudeled off to prison for his crimes but not Joe Corporation.
The remarks on mfctring were excerpts from Pat Choate’s book.
You wrote “One issue however, isn’t logical. You state: “The idea that these mfctring industries will never return is simply self-serving nonsense put forth by the outsourcers and their propagandists. The producers should bring the work and jobs back to the US or domestic-based suppliers should be encouraged to take their places.””
You state that bringing back jobs would require trade barriers. Perhaps. Pat authoritatively explains that by implementing a trade VAT our trade deficit could be greatly reduced. More excerpt: “Since the fair and flat taxes are consumption based, they arguably should be recognized by the WTO, but the reality is they would not be. The US would face years of ligigation and negotiations at the WTO —— and the final outcome would be determined by the votes of other nations that now enjoy their VAT advantage.” And, “ Replacing corporate and personal income taxs with the VAT would provide Am. The game changer it needs to put its fiscal house in order ——- The VAT can provide enough revenue—at lower tax rates and with a decreased burden on taxpayers, greater fairness and for lower compliance costs—to balace the federal budget annually and to begin paying down the national debt. A VAT would also make a major contribution in reducing the huge US trade deficit .” End excerpt.
You wrote that erecting trade barriers would set of trade wars. Seems we were doing pretty well before the 80’s and Regan/Friedman. There certainly is nothing fair about the current globalized trade. Pat’s book is something over 300 pages citing why our trade policies are stacked against us. A worthwhile read, IMO. I just picked one page, relates to how the FTC sold us out on patent rights well before the Carter admin. In 1956 the FTC required licensing of 8600 AT&T patents, in 78 another 40k patents. He states that the FTC gave away many of Am’s most essential technologies and the SEC left Wall St to its own devices and created a global financial collapse.
Your write: “Globalization can be managed through international cooperation, but, it cannot be reversed, UNLESS and UNTIL, the global economy fails. Of course, if that happens, the Great Depression will look like a banquet laden garden party in comparison, due to the world’s population having tripled since then.”
Been 30 years David. Show me something positive. You can’t. We need to recognize a failed Corpocracy when we see one. Should we be quite and wait for the extra-Great depression or should we act while we still have a couple of years? Shouldn’t we work to make Jefferson proud?

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Add-on’s. Consider a defense contractor with a big fat contract to build a particular widget. Would that Corp. not want to support or attack a candidate or incumbent based on how that candidate/incumbent would vote on the defense contractors projects?
From CNN we learn that China only allows 20 international films to be shown in China yearly as they want to support their internal film industry.
And, we have a Corpocracy that has worked for months to pass a healthcare bill, while denying the US citizen to purchase cheaper drugs from overseas.
Continue to support the Corpocracy? Not only no, but hell no. It’s just been 30 years.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

ROY, we should not wait. Obama is not waiting. He has tasked his administration with finding legal ways around the S.C.’s ruling. Amen!

Some in Congress are not waiting either. Barney Franks has drafts already in the design phase for reestablishing corporate limits and adding some additional, either for good measure or punitively, I can’t tell yet by the lack of details provided by Franks.

Many of us writers on the internet are making this SC ruling the big deal it is, where main stream media gave it 24 hour coverage and dropped it. Conflict of interest, perhaps? I think so.

David,
Why I realize the Members of the Supreme Court did not see Eye to Eye on this subject, I wonder how many CEOs or Corporate Representatives want to go on the record that they only want to serve a Limited Number of Customers even at the expense of making a profit for the Board and Shareholders?

Care to even guess what is going to happen to a Corporations Stock if their leaders play the game in the wrong direction?

Or do you think that they will be adviced that the Right to be Silence is Golden?

FYI, here is an ACLU article on topic. .

Because we all know this is just about left and right…

Henry,

Regretfully, Americans do not vote with their pocketbooks, and largely haven’t a clue what corporation’s philosophy or influence on government is.

The closest the public ever came was during the Wal-Mart boycott, which lasted about 3 months and was minimal, at best, barely registering on Wal-Mart’s revenues.

Roy, in addition, Public Citizen is organizing for an amendment to the Constitution excluding corporations from inclusion in the definition of money as speech. Ratification will be a no-go. But, the visibility on the issue should be enhanced, and raising public awareness of this issue is vital to any reversal of the Court’s position in law.

Rhinehold,

Well, no one ever claimed the ACLU gets it right ALL THE TIME! This is a case in point.

The ACLU has a purist streak where the Bill of Rights is concerned, and most of the time, that stands the organization in good stead.

However, the ACLU lost sight of the forest, for this tree. The Constitution established IN ORDER to create a democratic republic (the forest), not a plutocracy. They focused so narrowly on the speech question (the tree) that they forgot that this ruling could and would lead to plutocracy. Plutocracy invalidates the entire intent of the Constitution, to create a government beholding to the States and voters, not the corporations.

I have to disagree. The ruling did not establish that Corporations and other Groups had a free speech protection, only that once an entity is awarded an individual’s rights then they ALL must be protected equally.

Which IMO is a good ruling.

The real issue is whether or not corporations or other groups should be given those protections under the law, which is where we should be focusing and preserving the fact all rights are held equal under our constitution.

Rhinehold,

It established far, far more than what you allude to.

It continues to establish money is speech, and in doing so, it insures that some in our society shall have far MORE political speech than others, as opposed to the one person, one vote form of political speech on election day.

In addition, the corporations with deep pockets may dominate the information and issues which the public has access to through the media, and therefore, corporations shall have control over elections.

Thus, the ruling backs an OBVIOUS consequence of plutocracy, instead of the democratic republic which the original Constitution invoked. Not surprising, a plutocracy will benefit the Republican Party, which explains why conservative Justices ruled as activist judges as they did, in complete DISREGARG for the original intent of the Constitution. This ruling was partisan, pure and simple, without regard for the Constitution’s design toward a democratic republic, and in complete DISREGARD of stare decisis, which you have argued in defense of here, many times.

Three previous S.C. decisions were thrown out with this ruling. So, what? Are you now going to argue that activist judges are OK as long as they are conservative? That makes me laugh.

Are you suggesting it isn’t?

Would you be ok with a law that individuals are not allowed to give money to certain political organizations because they promote ? Like, perhaps, individuals are not allowed to give money to any communist organizations, like in the 1950s? And in doing so they could be held as ‘Enemies of the State’?

and in doing so, it insures that some in our society shall have far MORE political speech than others

MORE speech? No, it ensures that all will have free speech. How much someone talks is not a dependency on freedom.

Your hangup appears to be on money, as if having more money makes others unquestionably follow whatever you say. We are a country of individual thinkers, last time I checked, and just because someone has money that doesn’t mean anything.

Of course, you harp on corporations, but political action groups appear to be ok to you, at least there has been no mention of those groups at all. You are saying it should be ok for an administration to disallow groups like the ACLU, EFF or Teacher’s Union to have access to engage in political speech?

Or is your outrage ONLY directed at corporations?

as opposed to the one person, one vote form of political speech on election day.

You miss my point, David. Corporations and groups should have have the same rights as individuals. BUT, as long as they do, we cannot determine which groups OR individuals are given access to those rights. Doing so opens the door to further abuses of those rights. If the rights are not protected equally, they are not worth the paper they are written on, no matter how much we dislike it.

Apparently you would rather we be able to limit rights as the majority wishes. Which is a scary thought indeed.

In addition, the corporations with deep pockets may dominate the information and issues which the public has access to through the media, and therefore, corporations shall have control over elections.

BS. They may TRY, but without having the ability to use force, they cannot force anyone to do anything…

Last time I checked, TRYING to convince somebody of something was not against the law OR the sensibilities of our society.

Thus, the ruling backs an OBVIOUS consequence of plutocracy, instead of the democratic republic which the original Constitution invoked.

No, it follows the very ideas that our constitution were based on, rights are protected absolutely, not with caveats and partial inclusions, even as much as Obama’s adminsitration would like to have it that way.

Not surprising, a plutocracy will benefit the Republican Party

An absurd conclusion, it would benefit whoever is in charge at the time. Right now the plutocracy is benefiting the Democrats quite nicely…

which explains why conservative Justices ruled as activist judges as they did, in complete DISREGARG for the original intent of the Constitution. This ruling was partisan, pure and simple, without regard for the Constitution’s design toward a democratic republic, and in complete DISREGARD of stare decisis, which you have argued in defense of here, many times.

I have? Please, when have I argued in favor of stare decisis on here as an involute thing, David? I defend the original intent of the constitution and this decision upheld it. It was the previous decision that I find wrong and we should be attacking, not THIS one. This one was right, once an entity is found to have a right, that right must not be limited.

Three previous S.C. decisions were thrown out with this ruling. So, what? Are you now going to argue that activist judges are OK as long as they are conservative? That makes me laugh.

I’m not for or against ‘activist judges’ since that is an invention of those looking to corrupt the minds of others.

I *AM* for any jurist defending the constitution by not limiting rights once it is determining they are protected.

Those that are against such a thing, because they have a problem with someone else having access to resources, are the hypocrites here, David…

“Corporations and groups should NOThave have the same rights as individuals.”

I agree with Rhinehold’s last post. The goal should be to remove or restrict the influence of money from government, elections, etc. A ‘fictious entity’ is not human. Simple, when common sense is applied. But you have these competing interest that will try to make you believe black is white, night is day, etc. and with enough money backing them they are often successful.
Just heard Obama has gone to the center, if not populist. Wants to hold discretionary spending to $447B, same as last year I believe. Of course, Congress won’t stand for that but it might play in Peoria well enough to get him through 2012.
But, to remove the influence of money from government it will take a 3rd party with a mission to abolish Corporate Personhood and Money is Free Speech. Next effort would be to reform how campaigns are financed. All donations would have to go through the IRS. The IRS would, account, bundle and distribute funds to a reorganized FEC, breaking the audit trail. The FEC would disburse to the different parties. Of course, anyone attempting to skirt the process would be fined, etc. Limits giving to individuals but they could give as much and as often as they want, so long as it goes through the IRS. That’s what Republic Sentry is pushing. You get the response that money always finds its way thr9ugh the system. I don’t have a problem with that so long as if you get caught you pay a fine, get stretched on the rack, etc.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Roy,

What is the difference between that and making sure that all political speech (blogs, tv ads, newspaper editorials) went through a ‘Truth Division’ of the federal government? A ‘Ministry of Truth’ as it were?

BTW, what right does the government have to tell me who I can and can’t give money to and how much? Which section of the Constitution provides for that? Is that a legislative or executive branch power?

Could someone supporting this violation of individual rights point the power to do such a thing out to me please?

The ACLU board was recently approached by several liberal group and asked to alter its position on the recent Supreme Court ruling. Thankfully, friends of liberty were there as well to defend the ACLU.

“The worst thing you could do—the absolutely worst thing you could do—is transform a civil liberties organization into a liberal political organization,” Mr. Abrams, one of the most famous First Amendment lawyers in the country, told the board.

http://www.nysun.com/national/aclu-may-reverse-course-on-campaign-finance/86899/

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/25/free-speech-for-corporations

Critics fear that freed from constraints, giant corporations will burn vast sums to help or hurt politicians. In reality, most business people are not about to plunge into divisive election campaigns, for fear of antagonizing customers.

Apple and Microsoft are not going to be squaring off to see who can elect the next president. In Illinois, corporations have always been allowed to spend money on elections. They rarely take any noticeable role.

In the end, the right to speak does not mean the power to control the political process. It merely means the right to convey views that citizens are free to reject—which, if they distrust corporate power, is exactly what they are likely to do.

Under this ruling, corporations will be allowed to speak about politics, just as they may speak about their products. In both realms, though, the effort is wasted unless they offer something their audience wants. The marketplace of ideas is not so different from the marketplace of goods.

Corporations have the freedom to communicate what they want. But the people still have the ultimate right: the right to say no.

BTW, let’s not forget what the case was actually about. A non-for-profit organization wanted to air a movie that was critical of Hillary Clinton within 60 days of an election. Because of the law in place, it would have been a felony violation. The same goes for a book published in that time as well.

I am hearkened back to the phrase “I’ve never met a topic so dangerous that it can’t be talked about”. Apparently talking for or against a candidate is that one dangerous topic we must be protected from…

Rhinehold said: “Corporations and groups should NOT have have the same rights as individuals.”

Well, I wouldn’t go that far. But, I agree, they should not have the same right to use money as speech in influencing the outcome of elections.

There is no perfect rule that can be established here. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet as individuals have more powerful political speech at election time than you or me, if they choose to exercise it to influence elections.

Corporations however, especially today, constitute oligopolies, and monopolism is the hidden objective of every corporation, since, monopolism is the most direct and least costly route to shareholder growth in wealth in the shortest period of time. There are no other objectives of corporations, ultimately, and therefore, they constitute a vastly greater threat to our democratic republic than any one individual in the long run.

Rhinehold you are missing the import of the ruling, entirely.

The narrow case, which should have been argued on the law applied in the District Court, if stare decisis were to be observed, would only have resulted in the imposition of fines. No one would have gone to jail.

In fact, the entire issue of revoking corporate money limitations was never even brought up in the District Court. It first appeared in opening arguments of the S.C. case. Activist judges are free to turn any case before them into issues for review which were never raised in the lower courts. These conservative judges chose to become activist judges in their refusal to observe stare decisis and review the application of existing law only applied in the lower District Court ruling and process.

Rhinehold wrote: “What is the difference between that and making sure that all political speech (blogs, tv ads, newspaper editorials) went through a ‘Truth Division’ of the federal government? A ‘Ministry of Truth’ as it were?”

Applying a little common sense to the problem Rhinehold. Ergo, money is not speech. The judicial should work to bring laws that make the system of government “trustworthy’ and ‘fair’ as it relates to ‘we the people’. There is an ages old concept, ‘one person, one vote’. Nothing, NOTHING, could be more fair than that. Therefore, if you believe that and y9u believe that introducing money into the political process is a corrupting influence then you would want to REMOVE money from the campaign process. The media, and ‘we the people’ will be better served when CP and MISFS law is abolished.

Otherwise, etc.

Another common sense approach. If a man stands around a polling place and passes out $50 bills to folks he could possibly be arrested. Why? Because the majority of ‘we the people’ believe that money is a corrupting influence in political campaigns. Involving money in politics in any other way is simply shades of gray in wrongness from just passing it out at polling places.
But, we can all agree elections cost money. So, the better approach would be for ‘we the people’ to donate to a central receiver, have the receiver account, bundle and distribute to a transmitter for parsing funds to political parties.

David,
Why I will give you that argument when it comes to My Brothers and Sisters of the 70’s since most of them are just now waking up to the Rule of the Corporation; however, speaking as one intrigued by their Sons and Daughters response to My Boldness I wonder if the Establishments of the Elders and Powers-that-Be are ready to listen to the Political Viable Solutions that exist in Mans’ Known Universe today?

For why I have no problem with Corporations’ CEO or Representaive like Exxon of United Healthcare having a voice on who they would support for the Seats of Congress, I do believe their Boards and Stockholders might want to seriously talk to Congress anbout limiting the liability of the Company against any and all remarks that can bring instant financial riun to their Insititutions.

Because just as Americas’ Learniong Institutions have discovered over the years to contractally limit the speaking of their proffessors on Social Subjects, I do believe that the next few years will create endless opportunities for Corporate Lawyers to teach their clients why remaining silent on matters of politics is sometimes the wisest move of all.

Especially since I do believe that enlightening the Consumer may take a few more generations. Or do you believe that the American Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders are ready for a crash course in Consumership 101?